Skip to main content

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OP. COM'N v. Hickey-Mitchell Co.

E.D. Mo.December 21, 1973No. 73 C 296(4)Cited 19 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Nangle
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Discrimination

Outcome

The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss Count II (sex discrimination), denied the motion to dismiss Count I (race discrimination), and granted a protective order allowing defendant 30 days to respond to discovery requests while requiring plaintiff to disclose the scope of administrative investigation.

What This Ruling Means

**EEOC v. Hickey-Mitchell Company: Mixed Results in Discrimination Case** The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Hickey-Mitchell Company in 1973, claiming the company illegally discriminated against employees based on both race and sex. This federal lawsuit arose after the EEOC investigated workplace discrimination complaints at the company. The court reached a split decision on the EEOC's claims. The judge dismissed the sex discrimination portion of the case, meaning those allegations could not proceed to trial. However, the race discrimination claims were allowed to continue. The court also set some ground rules for how the case would move forward, giving the company 30 days to respond to information requests while requiring the EEOC to be more specific about what it investigated. This case shows workers that discrimination lawsuits can have mixed outcomes – some claims may succeed while others fail, even in the same case. It also demonstrates that the EEOC actively investigates and pursues workplace discrimination cases on behalf of workers. For employees facing discrimination, this case illustrates the importance of having strong evidence, as courts will carefully examine each type of discrimination claim separately before allowing cases to proceed.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.